Agree or Disagree

[Brian Chapin]

-

[Tom_Doak]

Well, what matters most is that the guys who are building the bunkers are really good and are trying to put the course back the way it shows in the photos. 

Sometimes, the architect is the guy who brings them along, and sometimes not.

Are there architectural decisions to be made?  Yes, there is a lot of interpretation as part of the process.  But it's not at all the same as designing a new course.

[ward peyronnin]

That's like saying as long as you have great photo's of Monticello any architect could recreate it.

Proportion, scale, internal elements . There is a lot that is not evident on the surface

[Ronald Montesano]

what the hell are photo's?

[Brian Chapin]

sorry... Photos. 

[RJ_Daley]

The photos can get close to showing what the bunkers and slopes looked like.  But can the photos say how the features performed?  I mean, can they say if the original slopes and contours, and size-shape-surrounds of bunkers drained properly and were useful in the strategy as intended by the original archie; or same with size shape and slope of greens and surrounds?  Sure, an architect that heads a firm or organization (who knows how to translate all this to functionality and call it 'restoration' is a highly desired asset.  But, if the routing and eval of all the aspects that created the course to be restored are already done, then recreating the 'look' along with functionality could be done soley by talented construction people, without the archie waving arms, it seems to me...

Also assuming the take-off in terms of budgetting and phazing the project can be done by internal course owners-and facilities staff and accountants, and the contructor can work within those budget perameters.

[Neil Regan]

Recently at a dinner with friends someone made the following statement pertaining to restoration work:  

"Assuming the club has great ground photos, it really shouldn't matter who the architect is."

I strongly disagree, but I'm curious if anyone can make a convincing argument to support the statement.

So.... do you agree or disagree with the statement, and why?

Brian,

  In my experience, a near-opposite proposition is more likely to be true:

Even if the club has great ground photos, it most definitely matters who is the architect.
                                                                                                                                                           

[Sean_A]

Which people are involved in any given project always matters.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

In my profession, where it is agreed that talent varies by factors of 50 to 1 or more, it matters very much.
I can't see how it should change so significantly in other professions that it would not matter at all.

Yes, it matters.
Disagree!

[Brian Chapin]

I agree that the guys building the bunkers can have a huge impact on a project, but as an architect isn't it your job to ensure that what goes on the ground is consistent with the photo and in character?

I've worked with some pretty amazing shapers the past few years... some that are REALLY creative, some that are REALLY amazing operators... but for a short time early on in the project we also had an operator that was not greatly skilled, and not creative at all.  I don't think that you could figure where one guy stopped and the next guy began.

To me, that is one reason it absolutely matters who the architect is. 

[Tom_Doak]

I agree that the guys building the bunkers can have a huge impact on a project, but as an architect isn't it your job to ensure that what goes on the ground is consistent with the photo and in character?

Brian:

Yes, it's my job.  But don't forget, a lot of the guys I've been working with the past few years are pretty good.  They don't really need a lot of baby-sitting, and most of them are very good about asking for my advice when they're not sure about something.

In fact, the guy who is your "architect" now was one of my "associates" or "shapers" not so long ago.  So were two others of the most prominent restorers of golf courses.  And the guys working for me now are just as determined to get the hole right as any of the others were.  In fact, in a lot of cases, they are the ones who helped their predecessors get all those bunkers right on all those other courses.

But the bottom line is still that restoration is not so much about architecture or master planning, it's about EXECUTION.  I've worked at several clubs where I felt like there was not much wrong with the previous architect's master plan; he just didn't have the ability [or support, or willingness] to build things that looked like the original work.  And I doubt that his being there a lot more would have made it all better.

[michael damico]

Recently at a dinner with friends someone made the following statement pertaining to restoration work:  

"Assuming the club has great ground photos, it really shouldn't matter who the architect is."

I strongly disagree, but I'm curious if anyone can make a convincing argument to support the statement.

So.... do you agree or disagree with the statement, and why?

Brian,

  In my experience, a near-opposite proposition is more likely to be true:

Even if the club has great ground photos, it most definitely matters who is the architect.
                                                                                                                                                           

what about a course that has been designed by a "great" architect and takes horrible ground photos?

[Joel_Stewart]

How many examples are there of great golf courses designed by architects that are not very well regarded.  (Trying to be diplomatic)

Desert Forest is an example. 

To answer the question, I strongly disagree on the premise and know a course that gave an architect 600 photos going back to the 1920's and to this architect it was like reading Chinese.